Municipio Autonomo De Ponce v. United States Office of Management & Budget
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111612
D.P.R.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (Municipio Autónomo de Ponce and other local organizations/individuals) challenge HHS/HRSA’s use of OMB-delineated Ponce MSA boundaries for Ryan White Part A/TGA eligibility, arguing the boundaries exclude nearby municipalities (Adjuntas, Santa Isabel, Coamo) that are socioeconomically integrated with Ponce.
- Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief (stay closing of the Ponce TGA) and FY2014 Part A funds (~$3.59M); Defendants opposed and submitted that FY2014 Part A funds were already awarded.
- HRSA determined Ponce failed TGA eligibility criteria and terminated Part A funding after repeated findings; no administrative post-hearing decision was produced and the Ryan White program lacks an internal review procedure for eligibility determinations.
- The court ordered HHS to produce documentation explaining the 1994 boundary decisions; HHS replied historical records were inaccessible or disposed under records-retention rules and offered no rationale for adopting OMB MSA delineations for Puerto Rico while allowing different treatment for New England.
- Plaintiffs presented commuting and local-government data showing substantial integration between Ponce and the disputed municipalities and local health authorities’ broader Ponce-region definition; the record shows no evidence of demographic shifts undermining that integration.
- The court found FY2014 funding claims moot (funds already awarded/exhausted) but concluded HHS’s unexplained retention of historical boundaries is arbitrary and capricious and declared the Ponce TGA boundaries unlawful going forward.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FY2014 Part A funding claims are justiciable | Plaintiffs seek immediate FY2014 funds to keep Ponce TGA operating | Defendants say FY2014 Part A funds were already lawfully awarded and exhausted, so courts cannot order expenditure | Denied as moot — court lacks jurisdiction over FY2014 funding claims |
| Whether HHS lawfully used historical OMB/1994 MSA boundaries for Ponce TGA eligibility | Plaintiffs say the boundaries were wrongly drawn, excluding integrated municipalities and causing erroneous disqualification | Defendants relied on historical (1994) boundaries to avoid funding disruption and argue nonstatistical programs need not follow OMB delineations | Court: HHS failed to articulate any rational basis or records supporting 1994 boundary choice; boundaries set aside as unlawful |
| Whether agency action survives arbitrary-and-capricious review under the APA | Plaintiffs argue HHS ignored pertinent aspects (local integration, high local HIV rates) and offered no reasoned decisionmaking | Defendants assert deference to agency discretion and reliance on historical continuity and CDC data | Court: Agency must show deliberative rationale; HHS abdicated duty to explain and thus action is arbitrary and capricious |
| Proper remedy (injunction/declaratory relief) | Plaintiffs requested injunctive relief, stay, and funding set-aside | Defendants: funding relief moot; resist altering boundary practice | Court granted declaratory relief (boundaries unlawful) but denied FY2014 funding relief due to mootness |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (agency deference framework)
- Aponte v. Calderon, 284 F.3d 184 (1st Cir. 2002) (notice and procedure for deciding TRO matters on the papers)
- County of Suffolk v. Sebelius, 605 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2010) (exhausted appropriations preclude effective relief; mootness of funding claims)
- City of Houston v. Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev., 24 F.3d 1421 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (courts cannot order expenditure of funds after appropriation exhausted)
- Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 556 U.S. 502 (2009) (APA review requires agencies to articulate reasons for decisions)
- Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504 (1994) (deference to agency interpretation in complex programs)
- Lovgren v. Locke, 701 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2012) (agency policy challenges fail if agency considered matter in detailed, reasoned fashion)
- Atieh v. Riordan, 727 F.3d 73 (1st Cir. 2013) (arbitrary-and-capricious standards — agency must consider pertinent aspects)
- Assoc. Fisheries of Maine, Inc. v. Daley, 127 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 1997) (courts require rational exercise of deliberative decisionmaking)
- Puerto Rico Sun Oil Co. v. EPA, 8 F.3d 73 (1st Cir. 1993) (agency decisions must be rational and explain relevant issues)